The Worship of God

[Jane_Doe]

42 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Every time I read the Bible, listen to a sermon, or engage in a Bible study group I ask God to confirm truth. I believe what we are talking about here is a fervent inquiry of the Spirit as to whether a new doctrine, which on the face of it runs in contradiction to currently held core beliefs, is called for. Joseph Smith was deeply disturbed by the divisions he saw in the Protestant Churches. In his desire for truth, he sought of the LORD. This is totally appropriate. However, if a Muslim tells you that Muhammed was the last prophet, so Joseph Smith could not have been one, would you automatically go into fasting and prayer, to inquire of Heavenly Father if this is so?  Would you do the same the next week when disciples of the World Mission Society Church of God come to your door and tell you that their founding pastor was the second coming of Christ?

My only suggestion is that we tend to be anchored in certain core beliefs. When someone brings counter-teachings, it takes a pretty high bar before most would make an impassioned inquiry of the LORD. I hope the distinction is clearer.  :-)

So the difference would be:

It's appropriate to ask God to confirm an old belief.

It's inappropriate to ask God to confirm an new belief?

(I'm sorry, I know this sounds like a bait, and I don't want it to-- cause I'm not baiting, but trying to understand.   But I can't figure out how to phrase it better.)

Also, I have actually honestly asked the Lord if Mohammad was a prophet and if he was indeed the last one (I trust the answer I receive is pretty obvious).  I ask the Lord everything.  

 

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

So the difference would be:

It's appropriate to ask God to confirm an old belief.

It's inappropriate to ask God to confirm an new belief?

Well, I'd try to understand the positions being reversed.  What would it take for you to ask God if our belief that Joseph was a prophet was false?  How sincere would you be about asking such a question?

I can think of only two times that such an act would be truly sincere:

1. When we are in a crisis of faith.
2. When we have some extra strong prompting from the Spirit to do so.

The converting power of the Book of Mormon is that it is simply a book.  There is nothing wrong with reading a book.  I've read parts of the Koran.  I have difficulty reading it straight through.  But I'm working on it.  So far... nothing.  But when reading the Book of Mormon, millions have been touched by the Spirit.  Even when they're not in a crisis of faith, they read it because they're interested.  But as they read they are touched and when that happens, they are prompted to pray about it.  Still many don't.  And when they aren't prompted by the Spirit to do so, Moroni's promise means nothing to them.

You can't just expect someone out of the blue to up and decide, "To do list: 1) Eat Breakfast.  2) Grocery shopping  3) Pray for God to tell me that everything I've learned is false."

Edited March 12, 2016 by Guest

[LeSellers]

16 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

God is an eternally unique being. We may grow and develop, but trans-species-ism is not in our future.

And therein is the crux of the problem: we are of His species. That's why we call Him "Father": He is our Father, He has always been our Father, and He always will be.

It's long been a puzzle to me that people who believe the Bible can ignore the doctrine that He is our Father, that they want to make Him something "other" and miss out on the centrality of our place in the Family of God.

Lehi

Edited March 12, 2016 by LeSellers

[NeedleinA]

14 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

God is an eternally unique being. We may grow and develop, but trans-species-ism is not in our future.

Thanks for making your answer super simple for my little brain.

13 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

We seek God's guidance on things we are uncertain about. To ask of the LORD whether or not something we believe is heretical/wrong might actually be a wonderful, divinely-restored truth would leave us open to every new whim. In other words, just as traditionalists must impress and positively influence those about us before they will consider our spiritual claims, so LDS must bring the would-be investigator to the place of--well, being an actual investigator--who already deeply questions his/her traditional beliefs--before they would pray a Moroni-like prayer with any fervency.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this PC!

Edited March 12, 2016 by NeedleinA

[NeedleinA]

1 hour ago, LeSellers said:

And therein is the crux of the problem: we are of His species.

I agree. This is probably one of the biggest divides between us and other religions. While we share many wonderful bridges of commonality between us, there remains this Grand Canyon below us.

[prisonchaplain]

10 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

So the difference would be:

It's appropriate to ask God to confirm an old belief.

It's inappropriate to ask God to confirm an new belief?

(I'm sorry, I know this sounds like a bait, and I don't want it to-- cause I'm not baiting, but trying to understand.   But I can't figure out how to phrase it better.)

Also, I have actually honestly asked the Lord if Mohammad was a prophet and if he was indeed the last one (I trust the answer I receive is pretty obvious).  I ask the Lord everything.  

 

Nuance. Well, sure, if a Muslim asked me to pray, on the spot, I probably would. Likewise, if I was having a particularly engaging discussion with LDS missionaries. However, if, in my inquiry, I had very little expectation that the LORD would call me to abandon my beliefs and embrace the new teachings, then my prayer would be internally, along the lines of: LORD, if you want me to go off with these folks--if this is actually true, do show me.

Is that sincere? Honest? I would say so. However, if I was the one from the other faith, and you then told me that the Spirit did not confirm the new truth, I'd likely think, "Of course not--your prayer was not sincere."

To put it another way, when Joseph Smith inquired of the LORD the accounts I've read suggest he was in deep spiritual inquiry. He expected/needed to hear some kind of direction from the LORD. Further, he knew that what God would tell him meant change of some kind (his father did not attend church regularly, according to the movie at Temple Square I saw). I'm guessing that when investigators pray the Moroni prayer the ones who do not receive a confirmation were most often not expecting one. If I were LDS I'd even justify this by thinking that the investigator is not spiritually hungry enough yet, and the LORD knows it might be better for this one to continue in life preparation for a season. 

[Jane_Doe]

On March 10, 2016 at 0:22 PM, prisonchaplain said:

I suppose we shall be fully god-like. However, we'll not become God. We are grateful to be created by God. We know we were not literally birthed by God, so it does not offend us to be his highest creation. We are the Artist's greatest masterpiece. Where's the downside in that?

 

On March 10, 2016 at 0:56 PM, Carborendum said:

@Jane_Doe & @prisonchaplain

I'd like to add my 2 cents... There is a difference between being created biologically (by our parents) vs. a work of art being created by an artist.  

Since as Latter-day Saints we believe that we were "born and begotten by Heavenly Parents" (Gospel Principles, Ch1; Acts 17:29) we believe we have that literal parent-child relationship.  Therefore it is an obvious next conclusion to believe that we may become like Him.

Protestants do not believe we are literally his offspring, but that the parent/child relationship is figurative only.  God may only continue to chip away at the rough marble until His sculpture is complete (according to his wishes) that we can become "perfect".  It would never do to believe that a sculpture could become like his creator.  Yet, that doesn't mean that the sculpture can't be so "perfect" that it honors the sculptor and truly speaks of His soul to those who look on it.

 

Thank you both for these posts.  Ruminating on them the last few days, I've had numerous "light bulb moments" regarding mainstream Christian theology: things clicking which previously didn't make sense.

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

Nuance. Well, sure, if a Muslim asked me to pray, on the spot, I probably would. Likewise, if I was having a particularly engaging discussion with LDS missionaries. However, if, in my inquiry, I had very little expectation that the LORD would call me to abandon my beliefs and embrace the new teachings, then my prayer would be internally, along the lines of: LORD, if you want me to go off with these folks--if this is actually true, do show me.

Is that sincere? Honest? I would say so. However, if I was the one from the other faith, and you then told me that the Spirit did not confirm the new truth, I'd likely think, "Of course not--your prayer was not sincere."

To put it another way, when Joseph Smith inquired of the LORD the accounts I've read suggest he was in deep spiritual inquiry. He expected/needed to hear some kind of direction from the LORD. Further, he knew that what God would tell him meant change of some kind (his father did not attend church regularly, according to the movie at Temple Square I saw). I'm guessing that when investigators pray the Moroni prayer the ones who do not receive a confirmation were most often not expecting one. If I were LDS I'd even justify this by thinking that the investigator is not spiritually hungry enough yet, and the LORD knows it might be better for this one to continue in life preparation for a season. 

Thank you for this eloquent reply PC, didn't quite answer my question.  If I'm understanding correctly, this is mostly about HOW to pray.   My query was whether or not one whether or not a person SHOULD pray about certain things. 

[prisonchaplain]

Jane Doe...You may run into some traditional folk who believe it dangerous to pray about doctrine. They suggest that one could be lead astray by "feelings." They might point out that the heart is deceitful above all else, etc. We Pentecostals are more open to praying for confirmation, on matters. So, anytime there is a question, I'd say, "Sure...pray!" There's a saying that goes something like:

All scripture and no Spirit leads to Pharisaism

All spirit and no scripture leads to heresy

As an example, if I prayed about whether Muhammed was the last prophet of God, and somehow I felt an affirmation in my spirit, I would not immediately convert to Islam. I would go back to the Bible and search out the scriptures about Jesus. I might compare these with the teachings of Muhammed. Ultimately, I believe that the Bible would temper that initial impulse, and the Holy Spirit would eventually confirm the deity of Christ and the salvation that is in him.

[beefche]

1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

Jane Doe...You may run into some traditional folk who believe it dangerous to pray about doctrine. They suggest that one could be lead astray by "feelings." They might point out that the heart is deceitful above all else, etc. We Pentecostals are more open to praying for confirmation, on matters. So, anytime there is a question, I'd say, "Sure...pray!" 

 

PC, something that I've never understood. I've heard people say that they won't pray about certain things because our feelings can lead us astray. But these same people will say they were called by God to do something (become a pastor, testify to someone, etc.). How does one know they are called if not through a prayer and their feelings regarding that prayer? 

[prisonchaplain]

beefche, doctrine is something we form based on scripture. Callings are perceived in prayer, meditation, and through dreams and visions. If a new teaching struck me as true, and caused me to seriously doubt my current belief, THEN I might pray on it. I'd also consult with learned teachers and mature believers. 

[Traveler]

On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 7:06 PM, prisonchaplain said:

beefche, doctrine is something we form based on scripture. Callings are perceived in prayer, meditation, and through dreams and visions. If a new teaching struck me as true, and caused me to seriously doubt my current belief, THEN I might pray on it. I'd also consult with learned teachers and mature believers.

One thing I have learned - It does not matter where a person looks they will only discover or find what they are looking for.  Jesus put it this why.  "Those that have eyes that see and ears that hear."  BTW - Jesus and his apostles where hardly to be considered on the list of learned teachers and mature believers when they walked in life - especially among the Jews.

 

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler, since that same line of reasoning works all ways, the hope is found in Jesus repeated statement to the churches in Asia Minor, "Let him who has ears hear what the Spirit is saying to the churches..." In our flesh nature we rely on what we want, and then find learned experts to back us up. However, those who are sincere in hungering and thirsting after righteousness--in seeking God with a pure heart--these will be filled and will find Him.

Edited March 14, 2016 by prisonchaplain

[Traveler]

22 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

Traveler, since that same line of reasoning works all ways, the hope is found in Jesus repeated statement to the churches in Asia Minor, "Let him who has ears hear what the Spirit is saying to the churches..." In our flesh nature we rely on what we want, and then find learned experts to back us up. However, those who are sincere in hungering and thirsting after righteousness--in seeking God with a pure heart--these will be filled and will find Him.

 

I cannot fully express how much our conversations mean to me PC.  I hope you do not mind but I would like to open up a little – not so much to criticize your notions as it is to voice concerns about my own.  If one is to have a real and open discussion with an atheists and listen to what they have experienced in life – you will begin to realize that their experiences are not different than that of a deeply religious individual.  In fact, why there is a difference is a conundrum. 

There is one difference that is causing the religious community to lose a great deal of credibility.   Often I have attempted to point out the role rhetorical logic plays in discussions where one party is attempting to convince another party of a particular idea or to defend an idea the first party holds.   Even G-d employs rhetorical logic in addressing those that will hear his words in scripture. 

It is human nature to ignore rhetorical logic when it does not suit what we humans seem to be hungering and thirsting for.  It is my nature as much as it is anyone else’s.  But this ability to ignore rhetorical logic, for some reason, reaches into the radically absurd in defense of religious and political ideas. 

I have had a few “spiritual” experiences that have shaped me as a person.  In the bright of day I have seen in vision and heard distinct sound while fully awake and all the while a person in my presents did not see or hear at all what I was experiencing.  I have been unable to express in words anything close to communicating my experience.  I am convinced it is not even possible and I know of certain that rhetorical logic does not help in this expression.  And yet in conversation with others convinced of religious notions it is apparent that my experience with the inexpressible is quite unlike theirs.   The closest I have found is the experience of Nikola Tesla vision from which he obtained the knowledge to build the world’s first brushless motor.  An invention that no one has been able to improve upon in over 100 years since it was revealed to Nikola.

I am troubled with experience I cannot rationally explain even to my closest and trusted friends.  But for me there is another dimension in the rhetorical.  Though I cannot express my experience what I came to understand yet the knowledge I received in my experience is completely rhetorical and unlike anything else I have learned in my life – I have not been able to improve in any way the initial understanding I was given in the experience.   I am also troubled because often in discussions the faulty rhetorical logic voiced by others on subjects that touch on what I learned through my “experiences” is crystal clear.  But any effort to point out anything that disturbs their preconceived notions – even if it is just a challenge to consider the possibility of an idea – there is strong resistance.  So strong is the resistance that the person, as it seems to me, will stand in the clear sun light of noon day and declare it night.

I do not believe that G-d gives one answer to one person and an opposing answer to another.  Yet it would seem that in every religious discussion where there are opposing opinions – each thinks themselves the closer to divine truth – regardless of any rhetorical logic.  I am convinced that when there are different religious opinions – one or both has a flawed or incomplete source.   I am convinced that the most likely to be flawed source is one that has some other source (scripture or expert or whatever) other than G-d himself.  Those that seek from other sources will not nor cannot ever come to similar conclusions.

One last point I am convinced – that if we think or measure our experience as beginning at birth and ending at death – the rhetorical logic of it will always eventually fail.  This is why I am LDS – at least for now.

The Traveler

[Vort]

On 3/14/2016 at 8:17 AM, Traveler said:

BTW - Jesus and his apostles where hardly to be considered on the list of learned teachers and mature believers when they walked in life - especially among the Jews.

Luke appears to disagree with this assessment.

[Vort]

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

Often I have attempted to point out the role rhetorical logic plays in discussions

For the record, "rhetorical logic" is a contradiction in terms. Rhetoric is, almost by definition, antilogic, or at least illogic.

[prisonchaplain]

I will simply affirm that there is truth. This means that when I disagree with others--specifically on this site--at least one of us is wrong. We may both miss the mark. I happen to disagree with the notion that scripture is more prone to error than spiritually discerned insight. We Pentecostals agree with LDS that God still speaks today--through prophesy. However, we disagree on how to discern a prophetic word's veracity. LDS seem to say that the latest revelation, once sustained, carries the most gravitas. We would say that any modern prophesy must comport to already-revealed scripture. Part of the discerning of spirits, then, is whether a message agrees with scripture.

As an example, if someone stood up in our church and declared, "Thus sayeth the LORD, the Trinity is false doctrine." We would quickly discern that the message was not from God. BUT, what if that person is right? Chances are, we would not know it unless the Holy Spirit simultaneously gave us all a very strong revelation.  This would be akin to one of your leaders declaring that one of your Articles of Faith was wrong.

Bottom line: Thank you for sharing, Traveler. I hope my explanation of how we discern modern prophesy strikes you as relevant. I believe it strikes how we discern truth from error--who's right and who's wrong.

[Guest]

I was just doing a bit of reading from the writings of Zeno of Elea.  His understanding of infinity might be of use.  One principle he taught was that everything is infinite.  Let me shorten his treatise and translate to the common tongue. 

• Counting by whole numbers we can go up or down from zero and keep counting to infinity or negative infinity.  But we never actually reach infinity.
• We have some large quantifiable amounts that we can count (e.g. $19 Trillion).  This is large, but it is not infinite because we can count to it.
• Between 0 and 1, there are also an infinite number of points contained therein.  Yet the step from 0 to 1 is not infinite.  It is quantifiable on man's level.

• Quote

  Moses 1:37 And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine.

   

Is it possible that God's infinity is numbered to Him? Is it possible that what we aspire to is simply those infinite points between 0 and 1?  This isn't really coming out right on some levels.  But it really does seem to make sense on other levels.

-- Food for thought.